Notes
, curd. mh che
Nore L., p. 5.
The study of the prophetic word.
Dr Capadose, in his speech at the Free Church General Assembly, thus remarks’on the duty of giving heed to the things concerning the Lord’s coming : — It is evident to the prayerful investigator of the Prophets, that the visible return of the Lord to reign as king, and the restoration of Israel to their own country, are both taught in the word of God. Men celebrated for their faith and scientific developments, living in different countries, but especially in Great Britain, so richly blessed, have remarked and pointed out the partial manner of expounding the prophecies, which has prevailed, even from the times of the Reformation. It has been customary, whenever mention is made in the Scriptures of the prosperity, blessedness, and the glory of Israel, to understand these passages in a spiritual sense, and to apply them exclusively to the Christian church; but on the contrary, whenever threats and punishments are announced, to understand them literally, and apply them to the descendants of Abraham. In your country, but especially in England, eloquent protestations have been made against such a mode of interpretation, and a sounder and more judicious explanation of the Prophecies has been proposed; but up to this day, no church has directed its special attention, as a church, to this important part of Divine truth. This was left for the better days that were to rise over the Protestant churches. Let a committee, chosen from among you, occupy themselves specially with this very important subject; so that in your excellent church confession, an additional article may be found, in which a belief of the restoration of Israel to the land of their inheritance, and the personal reign of King Jesus in glory, before the day of judgment, is acknowledged.”
Notes II., p. 37.
EK Christ’s absence.
Thus Rutherford writes, ‘* The wife of youth, that wants her husband some years, and expects he shall return to her from over-sea lands, is ofter on the shore; every ship coming near shore is her new joy; her heart loves the wind that shall bring him home. She asks at every passenger news — Oh saw ye my husband? What is he doing? When shall he come? Is he shipped for a return? Every ship that carrieth nother husband is the breaking of her heart.” — Trial and Triumph of Faith, Dedication. What would the heart-broken, absence-sick wife say to a neighbour that should attempt to comfort her, by telling her, that as she can look back to her wedding day with joy, irrespective of interval, so she should look forward to the meeting day, irrespective of interval, and be quite comforted though her absent husband should not return for twenty or forty years? Would she not bid him be gone, as one that knew nothing of the pain and blank of absence — as one who was mocking her grief. For earthly loves cannot defy dates, nor blot out the idea of the lonely interval that separates from the beloved one.
Nore IIlL., p. 48.
Dr Chalmers.
Before citing one or two passages from his Daily Scripture Readings, I may be allowed to state, that about two years before his death, I received a note from him, in which, among other things, he remarks, ‘* I am ap. prozimating much more closely to your prophetical views than I once did.” Many passages in these most interesting Scripture readings might be cited to illustrate this; among others the following, from the third volume. On the 50th Psalm he writes thus, — ‘* This is a remarkable Psalm, and the subject of it seems to lie within the domain of unfulfilled prophecy. There has been no appearance yet from$Mount Zion at all corresponding with that made from Mount Sinai. And I am far more inclined to the literal interpretation of this Psalm, than to that which would restrict it to the mere preaching of the gospel in the days of the apostles. It looks far more like the descent of the Son of man on the Mount of Olives, with all the accompaniments of a Jewish conversion and a first resurrection, and a destruction of the assembled hosts of Antichrist. The saints here summoned are those within the pale of the everlasting covenant, ratified with the blood of the sacrifice of Christ. The address here given is like that from the Son of God, now manifested to the Jews, who had returned, though yet unconverted, to the Holy Land, but who, now hearing the words as well as seeing the person of Him whom they had pierced, are born in a day by the impressive remonstrance and ever-renewing spectacle.” P. 61,
On the 68th Psalm he thus writes, — ‘* God has in reserve for his people still another restoration. He will bring them again, as of old, from Bashan
Cd
& and the Red Sea to their own land. His people will see him whom they have pierced — perhaps when His feet stand on the Mount of Olives, and Jerusalem will again become the metropolis of the Christian world.” P. 69.
On Isaiah xi. he speaks thus, — ‘* He will appear for his own, the meek and poor in spirit, and will visit on the earth its wickedness, that he may establish ever it the reign of righteousness and truth. These will be days of love and universal peace, when the very animals shall cease to devour each other. It seems a most perplexing law, that of animals obviously framed for the destruction of each other 3 and may we not hope for the literal fulfilment of such a revolution as is set forth in these verses? This regeneration of the world is obviously conjoined with the restoration of the Jews.” P. 278.
On the 25th chapter of the same book, at the 8th verse, we have this query, ‘* Can this be, that in the millennium there will be no death? Surely they who partake in the first resurrection will not die over again.” P. 289.
On the 7th verse of the 52d chapter he makes the following remark, which shows how decidedly his sympathies were with the literal interpreters of Scripture: — Their seeing eye to eye’ makes for the personal reign of Him whose feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives.” P. 326,
Nort IV., p. 57.
New Revelations.
As Mr Brown seems to regard the opinion, that in millennial days there shall be new revelation as a heresy peculiar to millennarianism — a heresy sufficient of itself to condemn the system, it may be as well to remind the reader, that this is a doctrine affirmed by anti-millennarians themselves. That some millennarians have started it, Iwillallow; but that some anti-millennarians have not only started it, but done so in a broader and more untenable form than any of their opponents, the following passage from Doddridge’s Lectures will prove: — “How far the form of governmeat and religion among the Jews may, upon their restoration to their own Jand, be changed from what it originally was, we cannot certainly say; but it is exceedingly probable, that so much of their ancient law will continue in force as can be reconciled with the genius of the Christian religion, and that God will raise up some divinely inspired prophets among them, with a full declaration of his mind and will in relation to a variety of questions which we have not light enough to decide; and’ some have thought that Elias, i.e. John the Baptist, will then be raised from the dead, and bear a considerable part in the glorious work of converting and settling them.” — (Part x. prop. 166, scholium 3.)
~
At the end of Brown’s Bible, there is ‘* a@ collection of the Prophecies cone eerning the calling of the Jews, and the glory which shall be in the latter days.” In this it is stated, that when Israel is restored, ‘* great miracles shall be wrought, as formerly when they were brought out of Egypt: viz. (1.) Drying up of the Euphrates, Isa. xi. 15, 16, Zech. x. 11, Rev. xvi. 12, &c. (2.) Causing rivers to flow in desert places, Isa. xli. 17, &c. (3.) Giving them prophets, Isa. lxvi. 18-21. (4.) The Lord Christ himself shall appear at the head of them, Isa. lii. 12, Hos. i. 10.” When our opponents exclaim against the heresy of some millennarians on this head, will they be simply just, and measure out the same censure to the venerable commentator, and also to Powell, in whose Concordance this collection first appeared, and then lastly to Dr John Owen, who recommends Powell’s work in an introductory note. Mr Brooks may be censurable, but only in ‘common with these old anti-millennarians.
In another place Mr Brown has done injustice to Mr Brooks. The latter is making a supposition, in order to illustrate his point — a supposition which is not really his opinion; and Mr Brown interposes a mark of exclamation, or I suppose of horror, at the words, and in a foot-note argues against Mr Brooks, as if he believed the supposition he had made. Mr Brooks says, ‘‘ Let it be granted, for argument’s sake, that St Paul and his apostles knew privately (here the mark of admiration is interposed) that a period of 1260 years was to intervene.” Mr Brown asks, in a note, ‘* Was there then an esoteric doctrine for the apostles themselves, and an exoteric doctrine for the people? Were these truths ‘ known privately’ to the apostles, but too dangerous to be promulgated in their public ministrations?” (p. 35.) This is unfair. Mr Brooks holds no such opinion; yet Mr Brown argues as if he did. Were I reasoning with an opponent thus, ‘* Granting that millennarianism is not true, how do you account for the many passages of Scripture which look so like as if it were?” would Mr Brown turn upon me and say, ‘* He does not believe in millennarianism
after all’? ‘
Note V., p. 61.
Christ’s Intercesston.
Lest I should beat all misunderstood, I would say that I do not wish to give the impression, that Mr Brown holds the continuance of Christ’s intercession for the conversion of sinners. But at p. 102 he expresses his concurrence with Dr Symington in the opinion, that ‘* the sustentation and continuance of the glorified state through eternity will be in some sense connected with the continued exercise of the mediatorial functions.” Now as Mr B. holds that this glorified state is to be on the new earth, he must hold that these functions are to be exercised on earth. Yet he affirms, i
NOTES. 4 AS
that he has proved that ‘‘ the sanctuary above is the exclusive sphere of the Redeemer’s intercession.” P, 100..
Nort VL, p. 64.
Extravagancies.
Anti-millennarians can sometimes give wing to fancy in a way which would be thought extravagant in their opponents. A writer in the Edin. Christian Instructor, in reviewing Mr Irving’s prophetical views, throws out the hint, that ‘* perhaps the rolled-up heavens, and the burning and dissolving earth, may pass away beyond the bounds of creation, the very local habitation of the wicked, who are reserved along with them to perdition.” August 1828, vol. 27, p. 538,
Note VIL., p. 76.
The Esse and the Modus.
In Bartlett’s Memoivs of Bishop Butler, there is a Sermon, not before
published, on John iii. 8, in which the following sentences occur: — “However, he might find some difficulty in assenting to this, because” neither the cause nor the manner of its operation falls under the notice of human sense, yet that is no objection against the reality of the fact.. A man may have sufficient reason to assure himself that a thing really is, without being able to give an account how it came to be,” (pp. 518, 519.) In prophecy, it is with revealed facts that we have to do. Their order, and the mode of their being brought to pass may to us be at present inexplicable; but that is no reason for denying them, or turning them into vague abstractions. It is more reverential to take them as we find them in God’s word, leaving it to him to arrange them, and to bring them to pass, in his own way and time.
Nore VIIL., p. 80.
Different descriptions of the judgment.
The difficulty of arranging the different descriptions relating to the judgment, is very much, greater than our opponents seem to believe. Upon any theory a harmony of them is difficult; much more so, I conceive, upon the post-millennial than ours. According to the apostle’s statement in one passage, the saints are to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ; according to another, they are to be the judges along with him. According to one passage, they are to be placed before his throne along with the wicked, and then to be separated as sheep from goats; according to another, they are to sit upon his throne judging the world. According to one passage the tares are first to be gathered, and then the wheat; according to another, the saints are first to be caught up into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and then the wicked destroyed by fire. According to one statement the angels are to go forth to “* sever the wicked from among the just,” (Matth. xiii. 49;) according to another, the just are fist to be summoned, and to receive the reward, and then ‘‘ the wicked and slothful servant, (Matth. xxv. 24.) According to one passage the saints are to go in at once into the chamber of the bridegroom, the door being shut on all the rest; according to another, they are to stand intermingled with the wicked before the throne of Christ’s glory till separated by him; and it is to be noticed besides, that theve it is the righteous that are first severed from the wicked, not the wicked from among the righteous, as another passage declares, There are many other similar difficulties of which I give these as specimens. Will our opponents try to solve these? Would it not be well calmly to confer as brethren, upon such difficulties? Instead of fastening upon the closing verses of the 24th of Matthew, and proclaiming them an insuperable barrier in the way of millennarianism, would it not be well to consider how far they equally present a difficulty to their own system, and how far the other difficulties I have adverted to can be reconciled upon their theory. Whatever may be the solution of them, it is very obvious that the system which makes the judgment one single simultaneous scene, cannot furnish the key to it. That key can only be found in a system which divides the scene, and lays it out in parts, and spreads it along a considerable period of time.
Note IX., p. 94.
The Milierites of America.
The Millerites of America are sometimes pointed to by our opponents as specimens of mdllennartanism and illustrations of its extravagancies. With what correctness the following statements may help to show. The positive part of their theory may be summed up in three heads, 1st, The coming of the Lord; 2dly, The perfect renovation of all things; 3d/y, The appropriation of the new earth for the everlasting residence of Christ and his saints. Thus far, I think, they are as much at one with Mr Brown as with us. For these three points are in his creed as well as ours. The negative part of their system is not so easily summed up. But in so far as I can gather it from several volumes of their works, I think I am correct in giving it under the following heads: — 1. There is no such thing as a millennial state on earth. The only thing that can be called by this name is the glorious one which abides for ever. And this I understand to be Mr Fairbairn’s view of the subject as opened up in the last chapter of his first volume upon.the types. 2. The Jews are not to be restored to their own land, nor to have anything wrought for them as a nation. All the promises to Israel, Judah, Sion, Jerusalem, are to be understood as solely applicable to the church and its privileges. To interpret them literally is the mark of carnality and unbelief — it is mere judaixing. This I also understand to be Mr Fairbairn’s view as brought out in the appendix to the work above referred to.* And as to the idea of the national pre-eminence of Israel, these Millerites are as sore upon us as Mr Brown himself. ‘The carnal seed of Abraham have ever received the promise and the prophecies in a carnal sense, and flattered themselves that the Holy One has respect of persons, and truly intends to make them heirs of this world and lords of the nations. In like manner some of the ancient church, in the latter part of the second century, began to judaize and to allow a certain pre-eminence of place in the promises to the carnal seed of Abraham for a thousand years. (First Report of the General Conference of Christians expecting the Advent of the L. J. C., held at Boston, 1840, p. 44). 3. The 20th of Revelation must either be wholly spiritual, or else refer to the eternal state. (Ib. pp. 62, 66.) They condemn us here as decidedly as Mr Brown does; and it is curious to notice that they start an objection to us very like that of Dr Carlile’s already referred to. ‘* How think you this world’s arms, its artillery and bayonets, would rattle against the defences of a spiritual city, and endanger the saint’s possessions.” (Ib. p.62.) 4. They spiritualize Ezekiel’s prophecy of the city and temple, disliking the literal just as much as Mr Brown. 5. They.hold that our system is incompatible with faith — * faith puts off the carnal man with his lusts, to walk in conformity with the sufferings of Christ; on the contrary, the judaizing nation promises deliverance from all suffering, and seems also to offer a full satisfaction of the natural appetites.” (BP. 52.)
I might multiply these points, but these are sufficient to show the nature of the Millerite system. The reader will judge for himself how far these men have any title to the name of millennarians; and also whether their opinions are not much more closely related to Mr Brown’s than to ours. We have hardly a point in common with them, negative or positive, save the belief of the Lord’s coming. For further information concerning them, the reader may consult the Report of the conference already referred to; also two small volumes written by Miller himself in the year 1841, one entitled Zucdence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ about the year 1843; the other, Views of the Pro
* At p. 477 and onwards, Mr Fairbairn quotes several millennarian writers as holding the literalities concerning Israel, and uses strong enough language in condemning them. Why did he not quote himself, and tell us that he also used to write as they write? I do not censure any one for changing his opinions, but why write such hard things against those who still hold what he has renounced; and why not cite a passage from his own Lecture on the Jews, as well as from those of the twelve millennarian clergymen? The reader will find what Mr F. once held at p. 49 of this volume.
phectes and Prophetic Chronology. There are also several’magazines or newspapers, such as the Voice of Elijah, in which their opinions are:set
forth.
Note X., p. 101.
Charge of Carnality.
The way in which we are charged with cherishing carnal ideas in regard to the kingdom of Christ, corresponds strikingly with the way in which Seiler accuses the prophets of carnal expectations. ‘* Concerning many things, they (the Jews) formed erroneous conceptions, some of the prophets themselves not excepted. ... They expected it (the kingdom of God) to arrive earlier than it did. They fancied that God would subdue the heathen by miraculous punishments. They believed that they should continue to live for ever on earth in this kingdom. They expected a new state of paradise on earth, and an abundance of the pleasures of sense. They had no conception of supersensuous or heavenly happiness, and therefore, as being persons whose notions were entirely sensuous, they could not conceive of a kingdom of God otherwise than as possessing a visible king, ruling on earth in splendid majesty.” — Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 270, 271.)
Our opponents dwell on the invisible, we superadd the visible; they take the inward, nor do we refuse it, but add the outward too. So did the prophets. So did the believing Jews. Was this carnal? Was this sensuous? Have we no conception of supersensuous happiness, because we can enjoy what is pleasant to the ear and eye? In the word of God, is material the antagonist of immaterial? Is it not its friend, its needful help-meet? Not the element of imperfection and discord, but of completeness and harmony and fulness?
Mr Douglas of Cavers makes the following statement concerning us: — “the same earthliness of mind revived the same doctrines among the millennarians who dreamt of an earthly paradise during a, thousand years in which their reanimated bodies should enjoy in innocence all earthly satisfactions and delights, instead of the glories of heaven. (Errors of Religion, part vii, sect. 9); and again, ‘ the dream of Christ’s personal reign on earth proceeds upon a complete ignorance of what Christ’s kingdom consists in, and of what his offices are.” (Ib. ib.) All that we desiderate here is the proof of assertions which are easily enough made, but not so easily substantiated. At the same time, Mr Douglas differs widely frora Mr Brown in his expectations of millennial days. He evidently looks for a far more blissful millennium than Mr B. does, remarking, that ‘it is impossible for us to expect too highly concerning the millennium,” (Ib., part vii. sect. 16), in this, according with Mr Brown of Haddington, who remarks regarding the millennium, ‘so general shall be
the reformation of mankind, that perhaps few will remain apparently wicked.” (Introduction to the Bible, near the close of chap. iv.)
Norz XI., p. 102.
Phil. ti. 11.
Mr Brown speaks very slightingly of the millennarian criticism on the expression tZavacrac1s ray vexowy (p, 330, 331). Robert Fleming, however, whose work on the Papacy is in great esteem among our opponents, is disposed to lay great stress upon it- He remarks that ‘this resurrection cannot be the general one, but a special one, antecedent to it,” (Christology, on the First Resurrection, p. 22.) Again he says, ‘‘ the only key of v. 11, 12, is this, that the Apostle Paul did believe that there would be a special resurrection of the more eminent resurrection servants of Christ, which would include a very peculiar reward; and that. this resurrection would be long before the general and last resurrection.” (Ib.
p- 26). See also his criticisms on the word tZavaeracis, (p. 68-83), most lengthened and elaborate, and which the reader would do well to consult, as they entirely refute those of Mr Brown.
Norte XII., p. 106.
Day of Judgment.
As to the day of judgment and its duration, let me cite the following passage from Fleming. ‘* After the militant state of the Christian church is run out in the year 2000, it is to enter on that glorious sabbatical millennary, when the saints shall reign on the earth in a peaceable manner for a thousand years more. After the expiration of which, Satan shall be let loose to play a new game, and men shall begin to apostatize almost universally from the truth, gathering themselves together under the character of Gog and Magog, from the four corners or parts of the world. But when they have brought the saints to the last extremity, Christ himself will appear in his glory and destroy his enemies with fire from heaven, which denotes the great conflagration, which is followed ‘with the resurrection and Christ’s calling men before him to judgment. And perhaps the time of this judgment will take up the greatest.part or the whole of another millennary of years; that.as there were four thousand years from the creation to his first coming, there may be four from thence to his triumphant entry into heaven with all his saints. For though the Scriptures call this time “a day,” yet we know what Peter says, that thousand years and a day are the same thing in Divine reckoning.* But that all men that ever lived should be publicly judged in a day or year or century, so as to have all their life and actions tried and searched into, as to me, I confess, inconceivable; not indeed in relation to God, but in relation to men and angels, who must be convinced of the equity of the procedure and sentence of the Judge.” — Fleming on the Rise and Fail of Papacy, pp. 25, 26, ed. 1793.
Nore XIII., p. 116.
Difficulties respecting the conflagration.
The difficulties as to the universal conflagration, &c., are generally supposed to belong exclusively to the millennarian theory; but I find several, who are no millennarians, much more at a loss about it than we can be said to be. Fleming, for instance, affirms that the conflagration will not only precede the general resurrection, but also the change of those that are found alive! He thinks that the most eminent saints will be at once caught up; that the wicked, who are then alive, will be burnt to death by the fire; and that persons of inferior piety will have to pass through the fire, (1 Cor. iii. 15)! — Fleming’s Christology, vol. iii. p. 44,45. As one of Fleming’s works is much in repute now, and his censure upon millennarianism often quoted, I think it right to give our opponents an opportunity of blaming him for stranger opinions than we have ever held.
Dr Candlish, in his work on Genesis, eaenly refers to the renewal of the earth by fire, yet does not seem to have felt Mr Brown’s difficulty as to its various localities emerging from the fire the same as before. Thus he writes, “‘ when the earth is renewed, the purpose of God respecting its distribution among the families of Noah, so long frustrated by the ambition of ungodly men, may be made more perfectly understood because more fully realised. The map sketched in the 10th chapter, may be found useful as a chart or plan, when some of the names noted there, as Gomer and Togarmoh, Magog, Meshech, and Tubal, become again prominent, as prophecy’ (Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.; Rev. xx.) intimates that they shall,” (p. 262.) Again, he shows that God has promised to Abraham the literal land of Canaan, ‘the identical land in which he was at the time asojourner,” (p.,) that this land he is to have when he is raised from the dead, and the earth has passed through its “purifying deluge of fire,” (p. 314.) ‘* In the present life his natural posterity/are to possess the Jand; in the future, in ‘ the regeneration,’ or in ‘ the resurrection,’ he himself and his spiritual seed are to occupy it. The soil which then he trod as a stranger, and where almost by mere sufferance his bones were to be allowed to lie, is to be part, and possibly the chief part,
* How often haye millennarians been censured for using this comparison! of the new earth in which righteousness is to dwell,” (p. 315.) ‘The land of Canaan, and the earth of which it forms a part, may, for any thing we can tell, be the local scene and seat of the inheritance,” (p. 316.) See also p. 321, where he shows the value and profitableness of this truth, and the danger of that ‘* dreamy and ideal spiritualizing which would refine away all matter, and which ultimately comes very near the notion of absorption into the infinite spirit;’? thus turning *‘ into a dim abstraction’’ the personal reality of hope, as well as the personal responsibility of sense. Again, in p. 389, he refers jto the increased extent of this inheritance, given in the latter day, first to the natural seed, and then, in the renewed earth, to the spiritual seed. Again, in pages 330, 331, 332, he takes up the subject, and shows that it is the earth ‘‘ recreated and purified by fire,’’ that is to be the local habitation of the blessed;”’ and that thus the meek shall literally inherit the earth, and Abraham and his children in the faith are to be heirs of the world, and especially of that most hallowed spot of the world, where he who was pre-eminently the seed of Abraham died and rose again.’”’ If so, then the land of Canaan, at least, shall not be so fused in the conflagration, as to have lost its identity in the mass of molten matter. Millennarians are not the only persons who maintain ‘‘ sheer impossibilities.’’*
Further, I observe that Dr Candlish not only holds, that it is on this renewed earth that the saints are to dwell; but also that in this new earth the animals are to be subjected to their “mild and holy rule,” (p. 31, 175.) Now, how are these animals to be preserved from the conflagration? We know how they were preserved from the deluge of water, but how are they to be saved from the flood of fire? And will Mr Brown think there is nothing carnal in the belief, that Christ and his saints are to occupy the earth along with the animals? Yet what does Mr Brown hold upon this point himself, seeing he believes earth to be the future habitation of ‘the redeemed and Redeemer? Mr Fairbairn’s opinions seem the same as Dr Candlish’s, (Typology, p. 465, and p. 527.)
Notr XIV., p. 124. -
Dionysius the Anti-chiliast.
The heterodozy of this father will not be questioned. He was unsound upon vital points. Yet he is frequently referred to by anti-millennarians as the great champion of their system in the third century. And in one of the latest works upon the subject, he is styled one of the greatest doctors of the church in the third century, distinguished alike by learning and charity.”? (Wordsworth’s Lectures, p. 16.) Origen, Dionysius, and
* I may notice that Dr Candlish identifies Isaiah ii. 2, with Rev. xxi. 3, p. 55.
Jerome are held up to admiration by that writer, as refuters of chiliasm. Chiliasm refuted by men who denied the eternity of future punishments, the divinity of the Spirit, justification by faith, &c.! It may be so; but in that case what ‘fair mind does not revolt from the wrong, so often done to us, of identifying chiliasm and heresy?
It is curious to find in the philosophic Schlegel an opponent of millennarianism. We find throughout his works the expressions of belief in and longing after ‘* the triumph of Christianity,” and anticipations of a last period of consummation.’’ But still he brands millennarianism as an ‘¢ illusion;” and one of his reasons for denying it is, that it ‘* destroys all belief in the ideal conception of the kingdom of divine truth.’ (Philosophy of History, Lect. xi.) it was incompatible with German philosophy — the philosophy of the ideal, the impersonal, the abstract. He is a sort of millennarian in his own way. He believes in a blessed era ere long to dawn on earth; but it is the era of the ideal not the personal. His millennium is one merely of principles and truths. He discards the personal. His philosophy finds sympathy with a system from which the personal and the palpable are as much as possible shut out; but it wars with one which brings these into prominence. His affinities are all against us; but they are with our opponents. Yet we are said to endanger the foundations of Christianity. This however we can say, that German philosophy and German rationalism are at keen war with us, and we with them.
Norg XV., p. 128.
The Westminster Chiliasts.
In proof of the assertion I have made respecting the Westminster Assembly, I subjoin an extract from Baillie.
“© For Mr Spang. September 5th, 1615. REVEREND and DEAR Bro-THER, — I got yours with Apollonius and — — -. I hope both will testifie our great respects to them so far as you could wish. Send me the rest of Forbes.* I like the book very well, and the man much better, for the book’s cause. Imarvel I can find nothing in its index against the millenaries. I cannot think the author a millenarie. I cannot dream why he should have omitted ane errour so famous in antiquitie, and so troublesome among us; for the most of the chief divines here, noé only Independents, bot others, such as Twiss, Marshall, Palmer, and many more, are express chiliasts. Its needful, if his judgment be right, that he should amend that omission, by ane express and large appendix.”’ — Baillie’s Letters and Journals, vol. ii. p. 313, Laing’s edition.
Instructiones Historico-Theologice, by Dr John Forbes, formerly professor of divinity in King’s College, Aberdeen, printed at Amsterdam, 1640.
Lae
Notz XVI, p. 116.
Mode of Interpretation.
A writer in the Congregational Magazine some years ago remarked, that ‘* all that is learned in the millennarian school must be forgotten, ere men can with advantage or propriety occupy the lowest form in that of sober Scripture interpretation.” (August 1839, p. 518.) This is sharp enough censure; yet we are not dismayed at it when we read such a statement as the following from Dr Woods of Andover, in his translation of Knapp’s Theology: — ‘‘ The allegorizing method of interpretation adopted by the teachers of the Alexandrine school, (he means Origen and Dionysius), enabled them to avoid the gross conceptions of the miJlennium, to which those who adopted the Jzteral mode were led.”? (Art. xv. § 154, note.) So that it is by resorting to Origen’s mode of allegorizing that we are to rid ourselves of millennarianism. In other words, we are to “avoid the gross conceptions” of millennarianism, by adopting a method of interpretation, which enabled Origen and his disciples to get quit of the doctrine of future punishments, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit. To Origen’s company we prefer that of Tyndale the Reformer, who thus writes, — ‘* No man dare abide by the literal sense of the text, but under a protestation, if it shall please the pope... thou shalt understand therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, and that is the literal sense; and that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err nor go out of the way... the greatest cause of which captivity and decay of faith, and this blindness, wherein we now sprang first of allegories; for Origen, and the doctors of his time, drew all the Scripture into allegory...insomuch as, that twenty doctors expound one. text twenty ways, as children make descant upon plain song. Yea, they are come into such blindness, that they not only say the literal sense profiteth not, but also that it is hurtful, and killeth the soul... God is a Spirit, and all his words are spiritual. Hs literal sense ts spiritual, and all his words are spiritual.” Yet a writer in the Biblical Review tells us, that *«the Romish church is the modern representative of the stereotyped letter;”- — the Romish church, which has all along anathematized the letter, Tyndale on the one hand, and Newman on the other being judges! (Bibi. Rev. April 1848, p. 447.) The same reviewer informs us, that “the Protestant millennarian doctrine has sprung from the same soil;’? comparing our views to “the icy-flower upon a window-pane,” and with quiet self-complacency letting us know how easily *‘ the sun of sober-minded spiritual thought can dissolve it into its primitive unstable element.” He had just before told us, that the crucifixion of Christ by the Jews was “‘ the result of this literal interpretation.” Most true! how-
beit the reviewer meant it for a sarcasm; for it is written by the Holy Spirit, “‘ with Him they crucify two thieves; and THE SCRIPTURE WAS FULFILLED WHICH SAITH, and he was numbered with the transgressors,” Matt. xy. 27, 28.
Nott XVIL., p. 158.
The Personal and Impersonal.
Several of Mr Brown’s expositions take for granted that systems, not persons, are the subjects of prophecy. He has not proved this position, but regards it as a postulate. I wish to notice here that this is the idea on which Heinrichs, Eichhorn, Hug, ‘Seiler, &c., proceed. It forms the basis of their expositions; which may be summed in the words of Seiler’s translator, ‘ Judaism, Paganism, and Christianity, the matron, the harlot, and the bride, are poetically represented under the images of the cities of Jerusalem, Rome, and the New Jerusalem.” (Seiler’s Bzbl. Herm. p- 563.) ‘Thus Hug writes, ‘‘ Jerusalem and Rome are the two cities whose destruction is here seen by the Spirit. It (Rome) could hardly signify anything but heathenism. ... If the capital of the heathen world symbolises the religion of the heathens, we shall easily ascertain what the capital of the Jews represented. What else but the Jewish religion. Therefore heathenism and Judaism, the two prevailing religions of the ancient world, were destined to perish.... If these cities be religions, they can be no other than these. If Rome and Jerusalem represent heathenism and Judaism, the New Zion can only be Christianity, which has an endless dominion, and which blesses mankind.’? He then gives reasons why this new Jerusalem must be a religion or system, not a state or kingdom of blessedness. Then he spiritualizes the resurrection (not the first resurrection only, but a@//). Then he resolves judgment into a mere figure, doing the same thing respecting ald resurrection and all judgment, as Mr Brown has done for the resurrection and judgment spoken of in Daniel, and in the beginning of the 20th of Revelation, “If a last judgment also be connected with it, we well know that such also is Jiguratively convoked by the prophets for the purpose of executing the punishment of those who have oppressed and ill-treated the people of God.” (Hug, Introd. to the N. T., vol. ii. pp. 669, 670). Thus, by means of introducing systems instead of persons, Hug has rid himself of both resurrection and judgment. And Swedenborg, in like manner, has made void the second advent, by making it to mean “‘the general and victorious establishment of his truth and love among men.” (True Christian Reiigion, vol. ii. p. 502.) One step more and the theory of systems has reached its height. Bush, by means of it, denies heaven and hell, calling them“gross conceptions,’ and bidding us look to the precincts of our own bosoms for the constitutive elements of each.” — Anastasis, Pref. Pp» Xii.)
Nore XVIIL., p. 264.
Daniel xii. 2.
Perhaps the reader would like to hear Robert Fleming’s opinion on this text. He does not attempt to spiritualize it into the resuscitation of an extinct party. He thus interprets it — I am very apt to believe that the Spirit of God has given us a hint of both these special resurrections that I am now discoursing of, as well as of the last general one in Dan. xii. 2; he adds, by way of distinction and peculiarity, this account of the more eminent saints and their special reward, they that be wise, &c. By which I do humbly suppose that the resurrection of the eminent saints of the Old Testament at Christ’s resurrection, and that other special resurrection, also at the beginning of the millennium, are denoted.” — (Chréstology. The first resurrection, p, 36.)
“Norm XIX., p. 362.
Rev. xx.
Robert Fleming makes this passage literal. In his discourse on the Papacy, he hints that it might be a revival of the Jewish church; but in his Christology he corrects himself, and maintains that this is “a real and corporeal resurrection of the apostles and other most eminent saints of the N. T., who died before the millennium began.” (Christology. The first resurrection, p. 40.) In commenting on this passage, he states his opinion as to the length of the judgment-day; ‘in the trial, conviction, and condemnation of which vast multitude, we may well suppose (as I have formerly said once and again) that the far greatest part of a thousand years willbe taken up.” (P. 41.) He makes also the apostle’s expression, saved so as by jire, to refer to the conflagration, and the escape of some of the righteous out of it with great difficulty. (P. 44.) efits! PHy 4 hath Ee oh Be ‘ #4 x
; ny f